Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2001 23:20:20 -0500 (EST) From: Ruth Groff <rgroff-AT-yorku.ca> Subject: events Hi all, I think that Viren raises an important point in flagging the concept of an event. Until recently I thought of it more or less the way Hans says. But there are places, especially when RB is talking about the inadequacy of conceiving of laws as the constant conjunction of events, where I think that the discussion only makes sense if he is read as meaning "perceived event". (To the extent that the argument is an argument against empiricism, Hans, don't you think it really *has* to mean "perceived?" I mean, what other kind of event is there, for the kind of phenomenalist empiricist that Bhaskar takes himself to be addressing?) This of course has implications for whether "events" belong in the domain of the actual or the empirical (to switch typologies for a moment). I guess I think that he's not perfectly consistent about this. r. --- from list seminar-14-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005